New Helmet Law Passed

[honda610]

I know the county of Athabasca allows the user of ATVS on the gravel roads if your machine is liscenced and insured.

[-JR-]

Originally Posted by honda610

I know the county of Athabasca allows the user of ATVS on the gravel roads if your machine is liscenced and insured.

Only if it is street legal ! And you have a licence. Other wise a fish cop will give you a ticket !

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by -JR-

Only if it is street legal ! And you have a licence. Other wise a fish cop will give you a ticket !

Depends on the MD's bylaws....some have it as a speed limit, too and from a trail direct route etc.

[Desert Eagle]

I worked around 2 major central Alberta dams . I was against all this regulating, etc prior to that. After you see what we saw in the 18 months I worked there, many more things should be regulated.... one of these areas sees in excess of 1500 people on a long weekend, and as discussed with a local SRD officer any less than 6 fatalities on any long weekend in the summer was a success. This is totally crazy, and completely preventable. A buddy was down last year and somebody decided to go for a rip in the dark. An hour later he launched off a cliff, and landed beside his trailer after a 200 foot plus drop. Wife and kids pack up the next day, daddy is gone.

As said previously to me it's not about the law. Many people need to just think about it big picture. Helmets are required when playing hockey. Most hockey players are not traveling much more than 15 kph. We are required to wear a hard hat at work when walking a pipeline in the middle of the Bush. Just the way life is... If you don't like it, deal with it as you see fit. However just think of what the people that are riding with you will see and feel if things go bad, as well as having to tell your family that your gone, or you are going to eat out of a straw and they will have to wipe your butt... your choice.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by Desert Eagle

I worked around 2 major central Alberta dams . I was against all this regulating, etc prior to that. After you see what we saw in the 18 months I worked there, many more things should be regulated.... one of these areas sees in excess of 1500 people on a long weekend, and as discussed with a local SRD officer any less than 6 fatalities on any long weekend in the summer was a success. This is totally crazy, and completely preventable. A buddy was down last year and somebody decided to go for a rip in the dark. An hour later he launched off a cliff, and landed beside his trailer after a 200 foot plus drop. Wife and kids pack up the next day, daddy is gone.

As said previously to me it's not about the law. Many people need to just think about it big picture. Helmets are required when playing hockey. Most hockey players are not traveling much more than 15 kph. We are required to wear a hard hat at work when walking a pipeline in the middle of the Bush. Just the way life is... If you don't like it, deal with it as you see fit. However just think of what the people that are riding with you will see and feel if things go bad, as well as having to tell your family that your gone, or you are going to eat out of a straw and they will have to wipe your butt... your choice.

I understand your point, but you make the point about hockey players, but you have figure skaters using the same ice, but they are not required to wear helmets.

Why are some people exempted, such as someone wearing a Turban? If this is for safety, then apply it across the board.

This government has a hate on for ANYONE that rides OHVs just for fun, like it's an evil activity to them.

If they eliminated the exemptions, THEN one could not question their motives.

They are a gutless bunch in that they are afraid to tell a Sikh that he has to wear a helmet like anyone else.

[Unregistered user]

No helmet in the world will protect daddy from a 200' freefall. 15 kph hockey players? WTH kinda hockey is that?

[SeanH]

I agree with this.
We should have the right to make the decisions we want. That being said if you make a stuod decision such as not wearing a helmet our public health care system should not cover you and you should receive a bill for any and all medical expenses.
We should have the freedom to choose but should also be responsible for our decisions.

[tacomama]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

I understand your point, but you make the point about hockey players, but you have figure skaters using the same ice, but they are not required to wear helmets.

Why are some people exempted, such as someone wearing a Turban? If this is for safety, then apply it across the board.

This government has a hate on for ANYONE that rides OHVs just for fun, like it's an evil activity to them.

If they eliminated the exemptions, THEN one could not question their motives.

They are a gutless bunch in that they are afraid to tell a Sikh that he has to wear a helmet like anyone else.

Right on point. Thank you.

"Why are some people exempted, such as someone wearing a Turban? If this is for safety, then apply it across the board." This is the key statement.

Interestingly though, I actually read the bill and also all the government published discussions (readings) and searched them all for anything to do with the turban issue. Not one of those documents has any mention on it, including the bill, yet it is an exemption on the website and FAQ's on the Alberta Transportation website. What's going on here. Why is it an exemption when it's not in the bill?

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by bat119

You would need a street legal quad, signal lights etc.

I no longer have a quad so not me. In many small towns in BC and Ontario you're good to go as is but not for continuous hiway travel, here you can't even do a stretch on MacLean Creek road, silly.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Desert Eagle

I worked around 2 major central Alberta dams . I was against all this regulating, etc prior to that. After you see what we saw in the 18 months I worked there, many more things should be regulated.... one of these areas sees in excess of 1500 people on a long weekend, and as discussed with a local SRD officer any less than 6 fatalities on any long weekend in the summer was a success. This is totally crazy, and completely preventable. A buddy was down last year and somebody decided to go for a rip in the dark. An hour later he launched off a cliff, and landed beside his trailer after a 200 foot plus drop. Wife and kids pack up the next day, daddy is gone.

As said previously to me it's not about the law. Many people need to just think about it big picture. Helmets are required when playing hockey. Most hockey players are not traveling much more than 15 kph. We are required to wear a hard hat at work when walking a pipeline in the middle of the Bush. Just the way life is... If you don't like it, deal with it as you see fit. However just think of what the people that are riding with you will see and feel if things go bad, as well as having to tell your family that your gone, or you are going to eat out of a straw and they will have to wipe your butt... your choice.

That person would still be dead after a 200 foot free fall whether he was wearing a helmet or not. As for hockey players only going 15km/hr, perhaps children, but at pretty much any adult level they hit higher speeds, and it is normal for players to strike the boards or the ice in every game that gets played, which is very different from the average adult putting around on his atv. A figure skater likely falls on the ice more often than the average atv rider falls off of his atv.
That being said, the safety excuse would be a lot easier to accept if there were no exceptions, as a single exception based on religion removes all credibility from that excuse.

[tacomama]

[IMG]via Imgflip Meme Generator[/IMG]

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As one of my friends used to say, if you have a $500 head, then buy a $500 helmet, if you have a $50 head, buy a $50 helmet.

No truth to any difference in protection. Although DOT helmets are designed to crush at a lower G level than Snell. And a lot of the high end helmets have the Snell rating.

There is some speculation that Snell might be overkill for most riding, as it is more of a race thing. Or used to be anyway. The thought being that hitting barrier at high speed might be better with more protection. The downside of a "hard" helmet, is with the typical "low G" impacts, where you still get your bell rung, and end up with a concussion, before the helmet lining gives.

The difference is mainly in materials used, and overall fit, quality and noise. The higher end Bell and Arai helmets are likely to be quiet at speed, and comfortable all day, with good venting. Though there are some lower priced options built in (ahem) cheaper countries of manufacture that are pretty nice now.

[Tactical Lever]

Not sure about this whole CSA rating for helmets; is that a new thing? Or is that a case of someone who doesn't know what the heck they're doing, turned loose and making up laws now?

I remember at one time, they wanted to put seat belts on motorbikes. I believe it was aimed mostly at street bikes. But if you've ridden at all, it's not hard to see how asinine that idea was. Just imagine being tied to a rolling, flipping 600 pound machine!

Putting a helmet on guarantees safety not in the slightest. I am not a fan of mandatory use, and know from personal experience that having a weight on your head, and a slight reduction of view, does nothing positive for your level of agility. For some situations, it's not a good thing; but then some of us can't decide that on our own can we?

Maybe we need legislated chest protection, foot protection, and hand also. I've seen people ride in flip flops... Heck, we could go full bear attack suit!

[Little red riding hood]

Originally Posted by Newview01

ps I wear a seat belt as often as I wear pants.

So that WAS you in the red dress trying to pick up the biker outside of the yellowhead Inn!

[Sundancefisher]

when does freedom to not wear a helmet trump another persons freedom to not pay a portion of the first person's emergency transport and medical bills for a serious head trauma?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

No truth to any difference in protection. Although DOT helmets are designed to crush at a lower G level than Snell. And a lot of the high end helmets have the Snell rating.

There is some speculation that Snell might be overkill for most riding, as it is more of a race thing. Or used to be anyway. The thought being that hitting barrier at high speed might be better with more protection. The downside of a "hard" helmet, is with the typical "low G" impacts, where you still get your bell rung, and end up with a concussion, before the helmet lining gives.

The difference is mainly in materials used, and overall fit, quality and noise. The higher end Bell and Arai helmets are likely to be quiet at speed, and comfortable all day, with good venting. Though there are some lower priced options built in (ahem) cheaper countries of manufacture that are pretty nice now.

So are you trying to tell us that all helmets offer the wearer equal protection, as long as they have either a DOT, or a Snell approval? I for one, would not be wearing a cheap DOT approved half helmet , if I intend to ride hard on a dirt bike, snowmobile or atv.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

when does freedom to not wear a helmet trump another persons freedom to not pay a portion of the first person's emergency transport and medical bills for a serious head trauma?

Well give the statistics, maybe we need to wear helmets everywhere.

This new law is only targeting a relatively small number of people doing one activity.

Meanwhile a lot of people get hurt at home and falls from short heights kill the most people due to head trauma.

Sent from my XP7700 using Tapatalk

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So are you trying to tell us that all helmets offer the wearer equal protection, as long as they have either a DOT, or a Snell approval? I for one, would not be wearing a cheap DOT approved half helmet , if I intend to ride hard on a dirt bike, snowmobile or atv.

Not equal, as a Snell rated helmet is harder before yield.

And obviously a full face or something with a chin bar protects your jaw better.

But price has nothing to do with it.

Sent from my XP7700 using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Not equal, as a Snell rated helmet is harder before yield.

And obviously a full face or something with a chin bar protects your jaw better.

But price has nothing to do with it.

Sent from my XP7700 using Tapatalk

Not only your jaw, many shorty type helmets don't cover the front, sides or rear of your head nearly as much as a full face helmet does, and they don't offer enough coverage to pass the Snell testing. And while the earlier Snell tests encourage a harder helmet lining, the Snell 2010/2015 testing systems favor a helmet that collapses more easily, and that will usually also pass the DOT tests.

[Austin]

This pic says it all

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

when does freedom to not wear a helmet trump another persons freedom to not pay a portion of the first person's emergency transport and medical bills for a serious head trauma?

Terrible argument as this can be applied to any risky behaviour including diet and any lifestyle choice whether extreme sports or mega couch-surfing. Choices we make will determine how and when we die. We all have the right to make such choices and if state-run health-care is going to be used as a reason to prohibit or control any one activity then we should all live exactly as directed by our rulers. Yuck! No thanks!

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Not only your jaw, many shorty type helmets don't cover the front, sides or rear of your head nearly as much as a full face helmet does, and they don't offer enough coverage to pass the Snell testing. And while the earlier Snell tests encourage a harder helmet lining, the Snell 2010/2015 testing systems favor a helmet that collapses more easily, and that will usually also pass the DOT tests.

Not talking about a half lid, or beany, although they are a little cheaper obviously. Just that the price has little to do with keeping your egg uncracked.

A DOT approved helmet may not pass a Snell, or vice versa.

And an $80 000 car may not be safer than a $30 000 car.

[JustMe]

Reading some of the moronic comments made on this post, it's not hard to fathom why the government saw the need for this piece of legislation. Lowest common denominator you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Not talking about a half lid, or beany, although they are a little cheaper obviously. Just that the price has little to do with keeping your egg uncracked.

A DOT approved helmet may not pass a Snell, or vice versa.

And an $80 000 car may not be safer than a $30 000 car.

I am talking about the cheap beanie/half helmets that many people purchase to meet the helmet requirements. They are generally lighter and cheaper, so they are very attractive to the people that just wear helmets to avoid tickets, and who aren't all that concerned about their safety.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by JustMe

Reading some of the moronic comments made on this post, it's not hard to fathom why the government saw the need for this piece of legislation. Lowest common denominator you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one had ever stopped you from wearing one, did they? Or did someone laugh, when you put a skid lid on? It was probably the "mohawk" on it or could have been the tassels on the handle bars. Not the helmet.

I survived the super-dangerous 3 wheeler years; even had a racing trike. But someone decided they should be banned for production. I do like the way 4 wheels handles, but grew up with 3 and don't have a problem with them. And I have decided some activities should have a helmet, but I don't need some busy body's intervention.

Was only a few years ago, when a guy in Edmonton picked a fight with someone. He ended up getting punched and his head hit the sidewalk and ended up killing him. Point is: living is dangerous. I'll bet about 1 in 1000 (if that) guys use fall arrest when putting up Christmas lights. I'm going to laugh when they legislate that, along with helmets for work at height in your yard. And helmets for cab-less tractors. And everyone is clamouring for it.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am talking about the cheap beanie/half helmets that many people purchase to meet the helmet requirements. They are generally lighter and cheaper, so they are very attractive to the people that just wear helmets to avoid tickets, and who aren't all that concerned about their safety.

Well I'm sure many will buy them. Nothing wrong with them, but they don't give you any protection for your face and jaw. Not my choice for getting one of the hot rod Kawasaki sport bikes, but fine for a sedate trail ride.

If I needed to pick up a helmet just for trail riding, I probably wouldn't bother looking for a Snell rating, but they sell DOT rated helmets with chin bars, and full face for street bikes and sleds, too.

[270person]

Originally Posted by SeanH

I agree with this.
We should have the right to make the decisions we want. That being said if you make a stuod decision such as not wearing a helmet our public health care system should not cover you and you should receive a bill for any and all medical expenses.
We should have the freedom to choose but should also be responsible for our decisions.

How do you pay that bill laying in a hospital bed for 6 months to life?

[270person]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Terrible argument as this can be applied to any risky behaviour including diet and any lifestyle choice whether extreme sports or mega couch-surfing.

Terrible argument as most diet challenged and mega couch-surfing individuals aren't being propelled by a gasoline engine when they cash in their chips and risking the lives of others.

I'm also pretty sure even the extreme sports indulgers are smart enough to wear helmets when so involved.

Sometimes you just have to protect stupid ya know. Like making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory when in a moving automobile. I remember the same great hullaballoo from the freedom fighters back then too. Even though they were proven to save lives. "But waaaa. what if I drive into a lake and can't free myself? Waaa". I have the right to make my own decisions" Waaa.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I just learned how to put on my new helmet for when I go riding this weekend.

https://youtu.be/mQPR5ZAN5Yo

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

I understand your point, but you make the point about hockey players, but you have figure skaters using the same ice, but they are not required to wear helmets.

Why are some people exempted, such as someone wearing a Turban? If this is for safety, then apply it across the board.

This government has a hate on for ANYONE that rides OHVs just for fun, like it's an evil activity to them.

If they eliminated the exemptions, THEN one could not question their motives.

They are a gutless bunch in that they are afraid to tell a Sikh that he has to wear a helmet like anyone else.

Figure skaters don't generally fire pucks at faces or got people hard enough to put them through the glass. Mind you Kerrigan got hit quite hard....